Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 15th 08, 07:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2008
Posts: 110
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.

Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for
white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated
white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the point
of calling it a draw on move 32. However, I still feel Kramnik with
his earlier aggresive moves could have pulled off a victory. But since
neither Kramnik pushed for a victory and later since neither Anand did
so I guess a draw in that sense was a fair result. At least this game
was more exciting than the boring first one.
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 15th 08, 11:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 01:17 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 625
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

* Offramp (00:41) schrieb:

On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.


I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not
rec.games.chess.computer.

mfg, simon .... l
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 05:00 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,999
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

Hey i like this because my webtv sucks so i can not watch the game live
+ i am at work when they are playing ..

Keep us informed , thank you

  #5   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 08:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2008
Posts: 110
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

On Oct 16, 3:41*am, Offramp wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.


After 18 when white played qe2 it was black's game but Kramnik did not
play as he should have.
Even then he could have won it upto move 26 but he made a few minor
mistakes as to what he should have played. Later on when he was a pawn
down he could still have played c5 before white did so. Anyway, its my
opinion that after move 17 Qe3+ it was clearly black's game. If you
want we can go to a chess website and play from thereonwards using
whatever software to aid you.


  #6   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 08:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2008
Posts: 110
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

On Oct 16, 5:17*am, Simon Krahnke wrote:
* Offramp (00:41) schrieb:

On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:


Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.


I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not
rec.games.chess.computer.

mfg, * * * * * * * * * * * simon .... l


I did post in on rec.games.chess.computer but it may not have come on
it. I honestly feel (after analyzing the game after move 18 when white
plays Qe2), that it was clearly black's game from there onwards.
However, Kramnik let off the pressure and played it safe. Ironically
when they both agreed to a draw on move 32 it was just about a very
slight edge to Anand. But I guess the mental drain that occurs after
such a game you cannot blame Anand for not trying to push for a win.
  #7   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 08:19 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2008
Posts: 110
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

On Oct 16, 3:41*am, Offramp wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.


He should have taken c4 with the knight and not the queen, provided he
had played properly on move 25. Don't criticize unless you understand
what is written. If you don't understand at least ask with what he
should have taken c4.
  #8   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 01:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.


"Simon Krahnke" wrote in message
...
* Offramp (00:41) schrieb:

On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer wrote:

Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a
slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on
c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3.
Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively
like he started earlier on.


After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke-
Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.


I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not
rec.games.chess.computer.


I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on topic
at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss abstractions.

That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but divorcing the
chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a pointless exercise -
for example, if what alan obrien writes about is true - can the computer
evaluate it?

Interestingly the most advanced chess conversations seek to reintegrate
man/machine - such as in Albert Albert's MAMS studies, and I obtained for Dr
A an introduction to Rybka's inventor, who certainly thought so!

From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what we
people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient, and MAMS suggests
that this is because the engine still has great difficulty perceiving
exchangesw of material for other advantages. Without solving this aspect of
chess computing, then the subject is as stalled as it was 10 years ago, and
only processor speed and bigger databases and end-tables cause its advance -
in other words, things largely independent of the program intself.

Phil Innes

mfg, simon .... l



  #9   Report Post  
Old October 16th 08, 02:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.

Chess One wrote:
"Simon Krahnke" wrote:
I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not
rec.games.chess.computer.


I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on
topic at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss
abstractions.


It's very simple, Phil. If it's an article *about* computer chess,
it's on-topic in rgc.computer. If it isn't about computer chess, it's
off-topic, even if it uses analysis from a chess computer.

Analysis done by computer is off topic, unless the angle is why the
computer `thought' what it did. So, discussion about why all the
computers think that such and such a move was really bad is on-topic
-- the goal is to better understand computer chess. Discussion about
why Anand or Kramnik did or did not play such and such a move is
off-topic -- the goal is to better understand a game played by humans.

That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but
divorcing the chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a
pointless exercise - for example, if what alan obrien writes about
is true - can the computer evaluate it?


There is no attempt to divorce chess from computers. However, if one
is commenting on an Anand-Kramnik game, even using computer analysis
as a tool, this is no more on-topic in rgc.computer (I used Fritz!)
than it is on comp.os.windows (it was running under XP!).

From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what
we people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient


A discussion along those lines would be entirely on-topic and welcome
in rgc.computer.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Swiss Erotic Chicken (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ farm animal but it's genuinely erotic
and made in Switzerland!
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Centre Game Results! Ken Lovering rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 3 April 11th 06 08:20 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 April 7th 06 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 19th 05 05:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017